Mark Janus, a child-support specialist for the state of Illinois,
doesn’t like paying $45 a month to AFSCME, the union that
represents him. So he’s suing. His case—Janus v.
AFSCME—is expected to be decided this summer by the U.S. Supreme
Court. It will be a controversial decision. Last year, down one member,
the court deadlocked 4-4 on a virtually identical case. This year, Neil
Gorsuch, the newest justice, will likely break the tie.

Note that Janus is not technically paying union dues. Under existing
law, nobody can be forced to join a union or pay its dues. However,
where workers are represented by a union, they can be required to pay
“fair share” or “agency” fees to help cover the
union’s costs for negotiating contracts and representing workers
in disputes with employers. The idea: keep people from getting a free
ride for what the union provides.

What agency fees don’t cover are costs associated with political
activities or organizing employees into a union. Congress has said
paying those costs could breach an employee’s constitutional right
to free speech by forcing them to fund political activities they may not support.

Union supporters argue that the organization representing Janus, an arm
of the National Right to Work Committee, which is supported by a number
of big-name conservative donors, is simply trying to stamp out unions
and lower costs for big business—at a time when corporations,
thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, can spend
as much as they want politicking. (Unions can too. But if they take in
fewer dues or fees, they would find it difficult.)

It’s easy to argue that workers shouldn’t be required to pay
for union activities they don’t support. It’s also easy to
argue that if people feel that strongly about not supporting unions,
they can work somewhere else.

What do you think? Should the Supreme Court side with Janus or his union?